150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[West Leas Oros 2]

I admit I know very little about cholos, but I at least congratulate you on leaving that life behind.

You know those hispanic guys who wear plaid and sunglasses and fisherman hats and drive low riders and listen to cypress hill?

I did all those things besides driving any sort of car obviously, and I knew a shitload of people who did some less than kosher things. Not gonna go into detail as to what and it was years ago, but I left that shit behind after my parents told me they were scared I would die one day from it. It isn't like I dont smoke weed still or stopped drinking old English, but I don't go looking for trouble these days. And the few people I hang around tend to be straight laced guys.

I see. I've heard a little, but I don't know much about them in the context you describe. For me it was a different story, and I struggled with very radical beliefs towards identity, and in general was... unpleasant to say the least. Imagine the most intolerant jerk you ever met, and then a little more.

[Stylan]

gotta love that not at all skewed poll.


i plan on making a thread about this, but cancel culture doesn't exist. the people who are cancelled lose literally no revenue.

[Liriena]

Also, has anybody brought up the fact that the open letter is very vague (almost suspiciously so) about its examples of "cancel culture"?

To be fair, most of this thread has been hella vague about examples too, but surely these signatories could afford to be more specific? Maybe even take advantage of the fact that it's an open letter posted online and added some links? Why are they relying on readers' clairvoyance?

[Proctopeo]

Hopefully this won't fall on deaf ears, though I know some people will point to JK Rowling and use her presence as a flimsy reason to dismiss it out of hand.

Tbf, I'm pretty sure that's how Chomsky feels... but that raises a problem with him signing off on this: it's kind of accidentally self-contradictory, given that "cancel culture" itself is a form of free speech. A mass action of public shaming is a mass expression of free speech. Their framing of it, however, implies that they do not perceive is as an acceptable or tolerable part of public debate, which feels like a potential prelude to speech policing.

It's an odd predicament, but there's a solution to it. Ignore attempts at cancelling. That's not easy, especially because of Twitter still being a thing, but it's something that could be done to allow those inclined to cancel people over perceived slights to continue to try and ruin lives, while still minimizing the amount of harm they do.
Obviously it's been a thing long before social media, but Twitter especially has served to not only accelerate the process, but drastically reduce the threshold.
Erin Pizzey is a good example of someone being cancelled before social media, and the journey she took is quite well documented online.

Certainly. Also, what does tearing down statues have to do with any of this?

Trump conflated the statues thing with "cancel culture" and "cultural revolution" and "cultural Marxism". So, predictably, OP and others have done the same.

They're not entirely disconnected, as, especially when it comes to statues that depict less objectionable people, it really does resemble "cancelling". Though it's more an iconoclasm than a "cultural revolution".

I think it’s a bit hypocritical to decry “cancel culture” when most people engage in it in one form or another.

What of it?

gotta love that not at all skewed poll.


i plan on making a thread about this, but cancel culture doesn't exist. the people who are cancelled lose literally no revenue.

Somehow I feel like this is factually incorrect

Also, has anybody brought up the fact that the open letter is very vague (almost suspiciously so) about its examples of "cancel culture"?

To be fair, most of this thread has been hella vague about examples too, but surely these signatories could afford to be more specific? Maybe even take advantage of the fact that it's an open letter posted online and added some links? Why are they relying on readers' clairvoyance?

So, I think their idea is this.
Lots of people online have some sort of cursory or tangential experience with "cancel culture", even if they don't use that terminology, so they may get an example in their head from merely discussing the topic. Avoiding specific examples also keeps some general sense of neutrality, as naming anything specific runs the risk of someone taking great offense to it not being called "justice".

[The Lone Alliance]

gotta love that not at all skewed poll.


i plan on making a thread about this, but cancel culture doesn't exist. the people who are cancelled lose literally no revenue.

Cancel culture also involves getting people fired because they said something controversial or hateful on social media.... at any point in their life... even from times 5 to 10 years ago.

Being fired = Lost Revenue

The largest problem is that people overestimate the social media mobs and underestimate their real world power. Most of the people who spend all day looking for people to cancel are simply nobodies, people with little economic power and little value to society, who get their entire self worth fighting on the internet.

Not much different from the Alt Right who some of them might actually secretly be. (And the Alt-Right and the Right itself also practice their own form of Cancel culture though not as great or impactful because they don't hold as much value in activism for activism's sake)

If a company ignores them, if people ignore them, they will hold no power, their "Boycott" threats mean nothing because they don't shop anyway.

Then again there is a downside to this as well, if eventually people get tired of the cancelers constant whining and start to collectively ignore all their attempts at the same time this might mean true marginalized voices might be ignored because they'll be mistaken as being just another bunch of mentally ill Karens.

That's a paradox as well, the solution to Cancel culture basically means ignoring all the bad faith actors while not ignoring the good faith actors.

[Hirota]

I largely agree with the letter, I disagree with the OP.

This open letter is long overdue. A strong message must be sent to those who would seek to permanently ruin the lives of ordinary, innocent, decent people over even the slightest hint of "microaggression" and years-old tweets that were posted when they were literally still kids in struggle sessions and cultural revolutions that would make Mao proud. These entitled, SJW "activists" and phony "journalists" have nothing better to do because they are ironically very privileged. They hypocritically scream about how they're sO oPpReSsEd and they're the victim of [insert bigotry here] and kIlL aLl mEn and wHiTe lIvEs dOnT mAtTeR but WE'RE the racists, sexists, "Islamophobes", and bigots, not them. This kind of authoritarian, anti-free speech bullshit must be stamped out before it has a chance to take root, corrupt our democracies, and threaten our cherished freedoms and very way of life.

Even Barack Obama has spoken out against cancel culture, as has Donald Trump. While this letter was written primarily by liberals and moderate leftists (including moderate far-leftists such as Noam Chomsky) and denounces Trump as an authoritarian demagogue, I believe that opposition to cancel culture ought to be a sustained, bipartisan effort. After all, authoritarian repression isn't unique to any particular ideology or religion and is a key part of human nature.

I think that anyone who tries to tell me what I can and can't say or do, or must say and do, under pain of losing my job, family, friends, and my very way of life, or possibly worse, can go fuck themselves. I will not kneel in submission to the dictates of BLM and MeToo (far-left), extol the virtues of the CCP (formerly far-left, now far-right), or acknowledge the inherent supremacy of Malays over non-Malays, Muslims over non-Muslims, and the infallible nature and unassailable position of Islam (far-right).

The U.S. Democrats and the British Labour Party, SNP, and Liberal Democrats must immediately purge these far-left, cancel-culture extremists from their ranks, immediately denounce and distance themselves from them, and send a clear message that all views are welcome and both internal dissent and debate as well as wider public discourse will be not only tolerated but widely encouraged if they wish to regain my erstwhile support. They must reassure moderate conservatives, moderate leftists, libertarians, centrists, classical liberals, and others not of the woke, far-left persuasion that they will not be marginalized and discriminated against for failing to toe the BLM/MeToo line and toe it precisely and enthusiastically, especially if they happen to be white and male.

Concrete steps must be taken to decisively eradicate cancel culture. Those who practice and promote it should be called out, and failing that, they should be given a taste of their own medicine through public shunning. Schools should be required to teach students about the evils of cancel culture and the importance of maintaining a free and open exchange of ideas at all costs. The youth of today must be deprogrammed. University courses that promote cancel culture must be defunded by governments and their degrees instantly derecognized at all levels of society.

Social media platforms that selectively enforce site rules in such a way as to selectively discriminate against users for holding certain views should be liable to lawsuits. They should be treated as essential public utilities just as internet access already is. MSM outlets should immediately fire any so-called "journalists" whose occupation consists primarily of canceling, or threatening to cancel, individuals over a perceived slight against society. They should invite actual debate and discussion by interviewing guests who are both critical of and supportive of BLM/MeToo and not just the latter.

What do you think, NSG? Do we fight for freedom, uphold liberalism, and defend democracy, or do we embrace ideological servitude while dishonestly pretending to be against slavery in all its forms? Feel free to answer in the poll provided.

I disagree that cancel culture is the sole domain of "entitled, SJW "activists" and phony "journalists"" or the "far-left" as you put it. There are examples of the right also employing it. James Gunn is one example I remember. It might have been weaponized by the "far-left" more recently (and most effectively), but other groups have used it too. Salman Rushdie is a good and stark example. We've got another thread by a professor saying something dumb on Twatter.

I also disagree with the claim that the various parties "must immediately purge these far-left, cancel-culture extremists from their ranks" - as long as we can counter the utterance of intolerant philosophies by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion we shouldn't need to cancel them or those intolerant of other peoples philosphies. I suspect you might argue that we are past that point, I would argue the fact we have this open letter demonstrates there is still hope.

[Zapato]

"Cancel culture", like "political correctness, is a definition-less pejorative term, often used by people who dislike our current social norms but don't wish to put in the work to come up with a real counter-position.

This debate is also filled with hypocrites; people who are decrying "cancel culture" but at the same time are eager to try to shut down voices they disagree with.

[The Huskar Social Union]

That poll is a load of balls lol

I largely agree with the letter, I disagree with the OP.

This open letter is long overdue. A strong message must be sent to those who would seek to permanently ruin the lives of ordinary, innocent, decent people over even the slightest hint of "microaggression" and years-old tweets that were posted when they were literally still kids in struggle sessions and cultural revolutions that would make Mao proud. These entitled, SJW "activists" and phony "journalists" have nothing better to do because they are ironically very privileged. They hypocritically scream about how they're sO oPpReSsEd and they're the victim of [insert bigotry here] and kIlL aLl mEn and wHiTe lIvEs dOnT mAtTeR but WE'RE the racists, sexists, "Islamophobes", and bigots, not them. This kind of authoritarian, anti-free speech bullshit must be stamped out before it has a chance to take root, corrupt our democracies, and threaten our cherished freedoms and very way of life.

Even Barack Obama has spoken out against cancel culture, as has Donald Trump. While this letter was written primarily by liberals and moderate leftists (including moderate far-leftists such as Noam Chomsky) and denounces Trump as an authoritarian demagogue, I believe that opposition to cancel culture ought to be a sustained, bipartisan effort. After all, authoritarian repression isn't unique to any particular ideology or religion and is a key part of human nature.

I think that anyone who tries to tell me what I can and can't say or do, or must say and do, under pain of losing my job, family, friends, and my very way of life, or possibly worse, can go fuck themselves. I will not kneel in submission to the dictates of BLM and MeToo (far-left), extol the virtues of the CCP (formerly far-left, now far-right), or acknowledge the inherent supremacy of Malays over non-Malays, Muslims over non-Muslims, and the infallible nature and unassailable position of Islam (far-right).

The U.S. Democrats and the British Labour Party, SNP, and Liberal Democrats must immediately purge these far-left, cancel-culture extremists from their ranks, immediately denounce and distance themselves from them, and send a clear message that all views are welcome and both internal dissent and debate as well as wider public discourse will be not only tolerated but widely encouraged if they wish to regain my erstwhile support. They must reassure moderate conservatives, moderate leftists, libertarians, centrists, classical liberals, and others not of the woke, far-left persuasion that they will not be marginalized and discriminated against for failing to toe the BLM/MeToo line and toe it precisely and enthusiastically, especially if they happen to be white and male.

Concrete steps must be taken to decisively eradicate cancel culture. Those who practice and promote it should be called out, and failing that, they should be given a taste of their own medicine through public shunning. Schools should be required to teach students about the evils of cancel culture and the importance of maintaining a free and open exchange of ideas at all costs. The youth of today must be deprogrammed. University courses that promote cancel culture must be defunded by governments and their degrees instantly derecognized at all levels of society.

Social media platforms that selectively enforce site rules in such a way as to selectively discriminate against users for holding certain views should be liable to lawsuits. They should be treated as essential public utilities just as internet access already is. MSM outlets should immediately fire any so-called "journalists" whose occupation consists primarily of canceling, or threatening to cancel, individuals over a perceived slight against society. They should invite actual debate and discussion by interviewing guests who are both critical of and supportive of BLM/MeToo and not just the latter.

What do you think, NSG? Do we fight for freedom, uphold liberalism, and defend democracy, or do we embrace ideological servitude while dishonestly pretending to be against slavery in all its forms? Feel free to answer in the poll provided.

I disagree that cancel culture is the sole domain of "entitled, SJW "activists" and phony "journalists"" or the "far-left" as you put it. There are examples of the right also employing it. James Gunn is one example I remember. It might have been weaponized by the "far-left" more recently (and most effectively), but other groups have used it too. Salman Rushdie is a good and stark example. We've got another thread by a professor saying something dumb on Twatter.

I also disagree with the claim that the various parties "must immediately purge these far-left, cancel-culture extremists from their ranks" - as long as we can counter the utterance of intolerant philosophies by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion we shouldn't need to cancel them or those intolerant of other peoples philosphies. I suspect you might argue that we are past that point, I would argue the fact we have this open letter demonstrates there is still hope.

I agree with this post.

[New Bremerton]

People are right to point out that cancel culture isn't unique to leftists and "Marxists". Cancel culture as it is practiced in Western countries is primarily a left-wing, "progressive" phenomenon, whereas cancel culture in China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, the Muslim world, and any non-Western, typically authoritarian country is primarily a right-wing, conservative phenomenon. Nonetheless, a line has been drawn and an all-out culture war in defense of absolute free speech must be waged in every corner of the world against would-be cancelers of all stripes, including both state and non-state actors alike. Liberal democracy and a free and open exchange of ideas must be defended at all costs. Anything less is a potential slippery slope toward tyranny.

I make reference to a right-wing, state-sanctioned variant of cancel culture in the ASEAN discussion thread (bolding mine):

Police initiate investigation on report by Al Jazeera

Police have begun an investigation into reports on an alleged attempt by international news agency Al Jazeera to tarnish Malaysia’s image through a documentary on how the country treated undocumented migrants in an effort to curb the spread of Covid-19.

Bukit Aman CID deputy director (Investigation/Legal) DCP Mior Faridalathrash Wahid said the department was conducting an investigation following a report made by the Immigration Department at the Precinct 7 Police Station in Putrajaya.

"We have opened investigation papers under Section 500 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998," he told Bernama.

Investigations were being conducted by the Kuala Lumpur police contingent.

Mior said the police also received a report on a similar issue by a woman in Putrajaya around 9am today.

The complainant made a report after watching the documentary on YouTube and her statement had been taken, he added.

Al Jazeera had released a 25-minute 50-second documentary entitled Locked Up in Malaysia's Lockdown that denounced the treatment of undocumented migrants when Malaysia took steps to tackle Covid-19.

Bernama today reported that the Inspector-General of Police Abdul Hamid Bador said the report released by the news agency alleging that Malaysia discriminated against undocumented migrants was inaccurate and further investigations were underway.

Earlier, Senior Minister (Security) Ismail Sabri Yaakob wanted Al Jazeera to apologise to Malaysians for posting false and misleading information.

- Bernama

Not too late to present your side of Al Jazeera report - Ambiga tells ministers

Former National Human Rights Society (Hakam) president Ambiga Sreenevasan said it is “not too late” for the relevant ministers to present their sides to claims made by Al Jazeera in a contentious documentary.

In a tweet, Ambiga (above) pointed out that the international news organisation had claimed to have sought the responses of Defence Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob, Home Minister Hamzah Zainuddin and their deputies, prior to airing the report.

However, their requests were allegedly not entertained.

Al Jazeera in a 25-minute documentary aired on July 3, titled Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown, criticised Malaysia in its handling of undocumented migrants during the movement control order (MCO) enforced to contain the Covid-19 pandemic.

“It was reported that apparently relevant ministers refused to be interviewed by Al Jazeera. Pity isn’t it since that would have been the best opportunity to present their side.

“It’s not too late. They can still do it,” said the former member of the Institutional Reforms Committee under the previous government and Bersih chairperson.

It was reported that apparently relevant Ministers refused to be interviewed by Al Jazeera. Pity isn’t it since that would have been the best opportunity to present their side. It’s not too late. They can still do it. https://t.co/hSOnXun6nF
— Ambiga Sreenevasan (@Ambiga_S) July 8, 2020

She made the posting in response to a tweet by Housing and Local Government Minister Zuraida Kamaruddin, who shared a compilation of netizens’ comments criticising the documentary, which is now the subject of a police probe.

“The government also seeks for Al Jazeera to apologise to all Malaysians over the inaccurate report,” the minister tweeted.

Her tweet echoed the call for an apology by Senior Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob (above), who labelled the documentary as “unethical” and denied that the government had been racist in handling undocumented migrants.

Controversy immediately erupted over claims aired on Al Jazeera’s 101 East programme, with critics claiming it misrepresented facts.

Among others, it deemed the immigration raids "military-style", alleged that minors were handcuffed and migrants were housed under cramped conditions.

The documentary also questioned if the crackdown was the “practical reality of dealing with the pandemic or is it racism?”

The report included interviews with migrants, NGOs, civil society organisations, and trade associations.

While not addressing the claim that Al Jazeera’s request for comment had not been entertained, Ismail responded later that the Perikatan Nasional government had not specifically targeted migrants, but everyone located in those areas specifically hit hard by Covid-19.

"It is not true to accuse us of being racist in our action as we acted according to the law. The Immigration Department nabbed the undocumented migrants based on the Immigration Act,” he had said.

Hamzah had since maintained that the authorities acted within the law, as well as according to the people’s wishes, while Health Minister Dr Adham Baba also denied the racism claim.

Aside from police investigations, the authorities are also searching for a Bangladesh national who was interviewed on the show.

Social media anger over the report continued to be fuelled, with Twitterjaya calling for the reporters and the interviewee to be deported.

Some have even taken to doxing the interviewee by revealing his purported known locations and place of work.

The National Security Council (NSC), which is coordinating the response to the virus outbreak, has also issued a warning that migrants risked having their immigration passes cancelled if they make “inaccurate statements” against the country.

Cancel culture rears its ugly head once again in Malaysia. The Malaysian government is so offended by the contents of an Al Jazeera documentary characterizing its coronavirus response, rightly or wrongly, as racist, that it is pursuing legal action against the network for daring to call it out. It was reported that a woman from Putrajaya, a Federal Territory populated mainly by civil servants and their families, was the one who filed the vindictive and politically-motivated police report.

As much as I distrust the left-leaning, Qatar-based network and some of the content it churns out, no government should ever go after the press in this way, no matter how unethical and despicable some journalists and editors may be. It's a bit rich of Sabri Yaakob, like many a smug, self-righteous Malaysian politician has done since time immemorial, to pretend to speak for all Malaysians. I don't need Al Jazeera to "apologize" to me.

Police are also searching for a foreign national who was interviewed in the program. The foreigner in question is now the victim of a doxing attempt spearheaded by far-right, cancel-culture fascists aligned with the government.

The only person who has managed to keep a level head and calmly field questions about the documentary and the government's treatment of migrants being held in detention facilities instead of calling for fire and fury is Health DG Noor Hisham. Thanks to him, the coronavirus has been almost completely contained in Malaysia, even within the detention facilities. My only criticism is that he should have volunteered to be interviewed by Al Jazeera in lieu of the thin-skinned, political cowards who have lashed out in the way they have. I'm pretty sure he would've been able to handle the scrutiny.

[Esternial]

I'm not sure JK Rowling is a good figurehead for this, but I agree with the underlying sentiment.

Cancel culture is a big overcorrection, and I'm hoping people aren't now trying to overcorrect again and spread the notion that one can say whatever they want without social consequences, or that people can't be addressed about things they said in the past, but doing things like contacting advertisers is taking it way too far.

As I stated in an older thread, cancel culture is the lynching of the digital age. It doesn't come from a place of good intentions, but rather an attempt to destroy "others". It's an evolved form of xenophobia.

Humans are societal beings, and I believe that we all have a mentality to ensure our society thrives with little conflict. Historically we have often physically eliminated threats to this "peace". There's threats were often also a lot more pronounced - the differences were a lot more clearly noticeable.

Nowadays our society has grown more modern and (relatively) more peaceful. In times of war we could focus on the clearly defined outside threat, but nowadays many people turn inwards and dig for anything that can be perceived a threat to their image of a well-functioning society. It's a side-effect of increased individualism: people now have more divergent ideas of what their ideal society looks like, or the improvement of society throughout history means the flaws that need to be "fixed" have become a lot more granular and a lot more subjective.

I'm not entirely sure I'm making myself very coherent. It's something I ponder on from time-to-time. It's sometimes just upsetting that humanity, with such great potential and adaptability, is still a slave to a primal cycle of hatred that has remained largely the same and molded itself to modern times.

[Greed and Death]

People are right to point out that cancel culture isn't unique to leftists and "Marxists". Cancel culture as it is practiced in Western countries is primarily a left-wing, "progressive" phenomenon, whereas cancel culture in China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, the Muslim world, and any non-Western, typically authoritarian country is primarily a right-wing, conservative phenomenon. Nonetheless, a line has been drawn and an all-out culture war in defense of absolute free speech must be waged in every corner of the world against would-be cancelers of all stripes, including both state and non-state actors alike. Liberal democracy and a free and open exchange of ideas must be defended at all costs. Anything less is a potential slippery slope toward tyranny.

I make reference to a right-wing, state-sanctioned variant of cancel culture in the ASEAN discussion thread (bolding mine):

Police initiate investigation on report by Al Jazeera

Not too late to present your side of Al Jazeera report - Ambiga tells ministers

Cancel culture rears its ugly head once again in Malaysia. The Malaysian government is so offended by the contents of an Al Jazeera documentary characterizing its coronavirus response, rightly or wrongly, as racist, that it is pursuing legal action against the network for daring to call it out. It was reported that a woman from Putrajaya, a Federal Territory populated mainly by civil servants and their families, was the one who filed the vindictive and politically-motivated police report.

As much as I distrust the left-leaning, Qatar-based network and some of the content it churns out, no government should ever go after the press in this way, no matter how unethical and despicable some journalists and editors may be. It's a bit rich of Sabri Yaakob, like many a smug, self-righteous Malaysian politician has done since time immemorial, to pretend to speak for all Malaysians. I don't need Al Jazeera to "apologize" to me.

Police are also searching for a foreign national who was interviewed in the program. The foreigner in question is now the victim of a doxing attempt spearheaded by far-right, cancel-culture fascists aligned with the government.

The only person who has managed to keep a level head and calmly field questions about the documentary and the government's treatment of migrants being held in detention facilities instead of calling for fire and fury is Health DG Noor Hisham. Thanks to him, the coronavirus has been almost completely contained in Malaysia, even within the detention facilities. My only criticism is that he should have volunteered to be interviewed by Al Jazeera in lieu of the thin-skinned, political cowards who have lashed out in the way they have. I'm pretty sure he would've been able to handle the scrutiny.

I find Al Jazeera to be a reasonable news organization.

[Greed and Death]

I'm not sure JK Rowling is a good figurehead for this, but I agree with the underlying sentiment.

I think JK is ideal. Cancel culture is bad.

But even if they have really vile view points ? Yes even if they have really vile viewpoints.

The same reason the Supreme Court used a child molester for Miranda rights. ie Yes they have this rights yes even if it involves molesting children.

[Grootfries Rijk]

I'm not sure JK Rowling is a good figurehead for this, but I agree with the underlying sentiment.

I think JK is ideal. Cancel culture is bad.

But even if they have really vile view points ? Yes even if they have really vile viewpoints.

The same reason the Supreme Court used a child molester for Miranda rights. ie Yes they have this rights yes even if it involves molesting children.

I feel like it needs to be mentioned. When people are fired from their work, its not because they're Cancelled and as such inherently evil. It's because they are no longer profitable as an employee. When an actor gets fired, its because the company believes that its revenue would go down if the now-Cancelled actor was to continue working for them. What are you going to do, force people to buy her books/watch his movies/whatever?

[Esternial]

I think JK is ideal. Cancel culture is bad.

But even if they have really vile view points ? Yes even if they have really vile viewpoints.

The same reason the Supreme Court used a child molester for Miranda rights. ie Yes they have this rights yes even if it involves molesting children.

I feel like it needs to be mentioned. When people are fired from their work, its not because they're Cancelled and as such inherently evil. It's because they are no longer profitable as an employee. When an actor gets fired, its because the company believes that its revenue would go down if the now-Cancelled actor was to continue working for them. What are you going to do, force people to buy her books/watch his movies/whatever?

I don't think people's primary issue is with employers terminating employments because of cancel culture. It's with the cancel culture.

It's the fact that people go to great lengths to make these people "unprofitable". Even if they manage to exonerate themselves, people struck by cancel culture often suffer irreversible damage.

It's a matter of cause and effect. The cause, the real problem, lies with the mentality of these cancel culture people and the lackadaisical manner in which they engage in their digital lynch mobs.

[Grootfries Rijk]

I feel like it needs to be mentioned. When people are fired from their work, its not because they're Cancelled and as such inherently evil. It's because they are no longer profitable as an employee. When an actor gets fired, its because the company believes that its revenue would go down if the now-Cancelled actor was to continue working for them. What are you going to do, force people to buy her books/watch his movies/whatever?

I don't think people's primary issue is with employers terminating employments because of cancel culture. It's with the cancel culture.

It's the fact that people go to great lengths to make these people "unprofitable". Even if they manage to exonerate themselves, people struck by cancel culture often suffer irreversible damage.

It's a matter of cause and effect. The cause, the real problem, lies with the mentality of these cancel culture people and the lackadaisical manner in which they engage in their digital lynch mobs.

The argument that its a "lynch mob" suggests that these people would be alright with it if a legitimate judicial system was the one doing the investigation. The actual problem is people don't want their actions and words to have any consequences. So the guy -who's been "Cancelled" due to people not wanting to associate with him due to his racist words, and as such been fired from his job due to his decrease profitability- complains about "cancel culture" ruining his life. What does he want, the company being forced to face an inevitable loss (in revenue or PR or whatever) by keeping him? The people being forced to associate with him? Just outright banning criticizing his racism in the first place?
Mind you, I'm well aware of the "lynch mob" aspect of this phenomenon and have my own criticism where that aspect of it -and how it opens the possibility of falsely or unjustly "Cancelling" people for things taken out of context (or just outright falsified)- is concerned.

[Esternial]

I don't think people's primary issue is with employers terminating employments because of cancel culture. It's with the cancel culture.

It's the fact that people go to great lengths to make these people "unprofitable". Even if they manage to exonerate themselves, people struck by cancel culture often suffer irreversible damage.

It's a matter of cause and effect. The cause, the real problem, lies with the mentality of these cancel culture people and the lackadaisical manner in which they engage in their digital lynch mobs.

The argument that its a "lynch mob" suggests that these people would be alright with it if a legitimate judicial system was the one doing the investigation. The actual problem is people don't want their actions and words to have any consequences. Mind you, I'm well aware of the "lynch mob" aspect of this phenomenon and have my own criticism where that aspect of it -and how it opens the possibility of falsely or unjustly "Cancelling" people for things taken out of context (or just outright falsified)- is concerned.

Not to stray too far into semantics, but the term "lynch mob" doesn't immediately imply that the mob would be fine with a judicial process to replace the lynching. It applies to any kind of extrajudicial sentencing.

[The Emerald Legion]

I think JK is ideal. Cancel culture is bad.

But even if they have really vile view points ? Yes even if they have really vile viewpoints.

The same reason the Supreme Court used a child molester for Miranda rights. ie Yes they have this rights yes even if it involves molesting children.

I feel like it needs to be mentioned. When people are fired from their work, its not because they're Cancelled and as such inherently evil. It's because they are no longer profitable as an employee. When an actor gets fired, its because the company believes that its revenue would go down if the now-Cancelled actor was to continue working for them. What are you going to do, force people to buy her books/watch his movies/whatever?

If companies were no longer permitted to fire Employees for political reasons, there would be no reason to pressure companies to do so.

[Galloism]

I think JK is ideal. Cancel culture is bad.

But even if they have really vile view points ? Yes even if they have really vile viewpoints.

The same reason the Supreme Court used a child molester for Miranda rights. ie Yes they have this rights yes even if it involves molesting children.

I feel like it needs to be mentioned. When people are fired from their work, its not because they're Cancelled and as such inherently evil. It's because they are no longer profitable as an employee. When an actor gets fired, its because the company believes that its revenue would go down if the now-Cancelled actor was to continue working for them. What are you going to do, force people to buy her books/watch his movies/whatever?

I'd say this is the same reason black people didn't get hired at many businesses in the south prior to the civil rights act, or were fired if the business owner made a mistake and hired them - if a grocery store hired a black employee, the number of customers they had would go down, as a number of racist white people would choose not to shop there. This makes that employee not profitable.

To that end, a law saying you can't fire people for being black, or refuse to hire them for being black, was a good law, as it gave the business a defense against the mob.

[Grootfries Rijk]

I feel like it needs to be mentioned. When people are fired from their work, its not because they're Cancelled and as such inherently evil. It's because they are no longer profitable as an employee. When an actor gets fired, its because the company believes that its revenue would go down if the now-Cancelled actor was to continue working for them. What are you going to do, force people to buy her books/watch his movies/whatever?

If companies were no longer permitted to fire Employees for political reasons, there would be no reason to pressure companies to do so.

The reasoning behind that "political reasons" is the fact that a person becomes a source of loss -rather than revenue- to the company. By that logic, you're violating that company's freedom of association and forcing it see loss in its revenues (or PR or whatever else) just so a racist can be free from the consequences of his action.

[Grootfries Rijk]

I'd say this is the same reason black people didn't get hired at many businesses in the south prior to the civil rights act, or were fired if the business owner made a mistake and hired them - if a grocery store hired a black employee, the number of customers they had would go down, as a number of racist white people would choose not to shop there. This makes that employee not profitable.

To that end, a law saying you can't fire people for being black, or refuse to hire them for being black, was a good law, as it gave the business a defense against the mob.

While I don't agree with you comparison, I can see your point. That doesn't change the problem of "people not wanting to watch a racist guy's movies" though. That was fixed through a process of reforming the society from the top-bottom in case of blacks not being allowed to work. I feel like doing the opposite is... redundant.

[The Emerald Legion]

If companies were no longer permitted to fire Employees for political reasons, there would be no reason to pressure companies to do so.

The reasoning behind that "political reasons" is the fact that a person becomes a source of loss -rather than revenue- to the company. By that logic, you're violating that company's freedom of association and forcing it see loss in its revenues (or PR or whatever else) just so a racist can be free from the consequences of his action.

You mean the same exact thing that happens all the time with protected classes like Race?

Also, most of today's left have zero idea what racism is.

[Grootfries Rijk]

The reasoning behind that "political reasons" is the fact that a person becomes a source of loss -rather than revenue- to the company. By that logic, you're violating that company's freedom of association and forcing it see loss in its revenues (or PR or whatever else) just so a racist can be free from the consequences of his action.

You mean the same exact thing that happens all the time with protected classes like Race?

Also, most of today's left have zero idea what racism is.

Opinion isn't, and should never be, a "protected class" though.

[Esternial]

If companies were no longer permitted to fire Employees for political reasons, there would be no reason to pressure companies to do so.

The reasoning behind that "political reasons" is the fact that a person becomes a source of loss -rather than revenue- to the company. By that logic, you're violating that company's freedom of association and forcing it see loss in its revenues (or PR or whatever else) just so a racist can be free from the consequences of his action.

On the flip-side, boycotting a company because it simply won't fire an employee whose views have no impact on their products is not a mentality we should encourage.

Note, "actor" is not the world's sole profession.

[The Emerald Legion]

You mean the same exact thing that happens all the time with protected classes like Race?

Also, most of today's left have zero idea what racism is.

Opinion isn't, and should never be, a "protected class" though.

Of course it should be, and already is in some localities.

[Grootfries Rijk]

The reasoning behind that "political reasons" is the fact that a person becomes a source of loss -rather than revenue- to the company. By that logic, you're violating that company's freedom of association and forcing it see loss in its revenues (or PR or whatever else) just so a racist can be free from the consequences of his action.

On the flip-side, boycotting a company because it simply won't fire an employee whose views have no impact on their products is not a mentality we should encourage.

That's a point we'll have to agree to disagree on. I very much support boycotting companies that don't fire racists, transphobes, homophobes, etc. The only problem here as far as I'm concerned is proving the fact the person in question is a racist, etc. -which in an emotionally-controlled mob is extremely hard to do.